Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Swing Dangler]

* Waterboy mode on:

"[The FDNY had to ask Silverstein's permission to blow up the World Trade Center] for the same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it."

* Waterboy mode off.

I am sure that Swing will back me up on this minor change, seeing as how he valiantly scrambled to Waterboy’s defense when Waterboy changed:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

To

“I said .... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And [the Fire Commander and I ] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

/INTELLECTUALY BANKRUPT. Don’t the Truthers ever get mad when they find out the stars of their movement lie to them?

Swing Sez: “Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you!”

Can you not get a single thing correct in your whole existence? I did not say I did not read it, I said I did not look at it. But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.

Were you going to cover the press release by Larry's office in your analysis.

Hmm you can read a paper without looking at? Heck you should be applying to James Randi's million dollar challenge.

DGM- Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public T..._withlinks.pdf
I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

William may have believed that at the time he made the statement.

Dave Rogers
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper.
You must have missed the bit where the press release didn't do any such thing. And I must have missed the bit where a deliberate misquote becomes something other than a deliberate misquote when the person quoted has said something very slightly different since.

Kevin Ryan lied when he changed the quote, and he did so deliberately. You have no argument to counter that, so you're blowing smoke. Your spirited defence of deliberate lying makes it clear how interested you are in finding out the truth here. Morally, you've got no ground to stand on here, and neither has Kevin Ryan.

Dave

Very slightly different? LOL! But different none the less. Nuff said.
Dave, go back and read the press release. Compare that to the article I linked to. There is no lie only updated information based upon the press release. Move on....

 

[The Big Dog]

"But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.

"Were you going to cover the press release by Larry's office in your analysis."

Yeah, done that.

"Hmm you can read a paper without looking at? Heck you should be applying to James Randi's million dollar challenge."

"But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is."

LOL!, Swing, you are pathetic. How can you be this disengenious?

 

[DGM]

William may have believed that at the time he made the statement.

That statement was from Feb 2004.
Doesn't he say that after medical treatment he went back to GZ. He must have forgot that part.

Rodriguez spent the rest of 9/11 aiding as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at Ground Zero continuing his heroic efforts.

http://www.william911.com/

 

[LashL]

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.

If I recall correctly, Chief Cruthers and Chief Fellini were also on site commanders (one an incident commander and one an operations commander - this changed at various times through the day when other chiefs were killed or injured.) It could be that Mr. Silverstein spoke to one of them, or another commander, and not Chief Nigro at all.

As it stands, I think that it wrong for anyone to assume that it was Chief Nigro who spoke to Mr. Silverstein, and therefore wrong for you to assume that either of them is lying.

 

[Belz...]

You are probably correct that it is illegal if the proper channels and procedures, filings, etc. are not followed. The question of course is based upon a false dilemma.

Then, why do you assume they needed Silvertstein's approval ?

 

[Lurker]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.

For parallel springs it is a simple addition (instead of the reverse addition) and it is interesting to note that this is exactly the opposite of electrical resistors. IMHO I think you are completely right.

Um, two springs in series would distribute the load between. That is not analagous to the WTC in any way. In the WTC you have a force acting in both directions so F is the same for the top as the bottom "spring". Plus, this is statics, not dynamics. The crux of my equation is relating a dynamic force to the equivalent static force.

 

[David B. Benson]

No impact at collapse initiation

The impacting mass ...

The title says it. Collapse began with a sudden load of long duration on the core columns when the walls buckled.

 

[Gravy]

Nah. At this time W-Rod has changed his tune. You don't remove it in such case. Put in a footnote or other explanation, rather.

No footnote or explanation will be added. I have repeatedly directly asked Rodriguez if he will clarify this point. Although he has responded to other parts of my emails, he will not address this. Since I got this information from Rodriguez and he has not changed it, I consider it to be accurate.

Could you point me to the qualifier where he states this. You know, just so everyone he says it to is clear.

Rodriguez continues to both directly claim and to give the impression that he was the last survivor of the north tower. That appears several times on his websites, and his tours are named "Last Man Out." I have repeatedly pointed this out to him.

 

[lisabob2]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?

 

[gumboot]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

So you can name some errors Mark has made?

-Gumboot

 

[Coffee]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

What does Mark Roberts get wrong? Please explain in detail.

 

[AZCat]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

Mark Roberts (aka Gravy) has at least one qualification that I can vouch for: he is not a moron.

Alas, about Jones and Griscom I can't say the same.

 

[AZCat]

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?

Griscom has written a letter to JONES. I don't know if he has done anything else.

 

[Gravy]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.

Your research skills are poor. I'm a tour guide. Do you have errors of mine to point out? This thread was started so that people who had been doing nothing but making ad hominem arguments about me could publish substantive, factual criticism.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Here's a thread about Griscom's letter to JONES, in case Lisabob2 is interested in discussing any of the specific claims of this character: Waiving the hands of physics

Just out of curiosity, do you blame the victims as well, Lisabob2?

 

[pomeroo]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

As matter of FACT, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As matter of FACT, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers.

That is not a FACT.

BYU

Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):
· S.E. Jones and J.E. Ellsworth, "Cold (metal-enhanced) fusion, geo-fusion, and cold nucleosynthesis", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2005, London: World Scientific, p. 617.

· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989). Results confirmed:2001: "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments", Europhysics Letters, 54:449 “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].” Also, K. Czerski, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A27:S01,83 (2006) “ As shown in [Europhys. Lett. 68:363 (2004)], the screening energy of order 300 eV determined in accelerator experiments can explain the neutron production rate observed by Jones et al. [Nature 338:737, 1989] at room temperature.”

· J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

· S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).
· S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, A.J. Caffrey, J.S. Cohen, P.A.M. Gram, M. Leon, R.L. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, C.D. Van Siclen, and K.D. Watts, "Observation of Unexpected Density Effects in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 56: 588-591 (1986).

• Research discussed at the American Physical Society Four Corners meeting, 6-7 Oct 2006 • D3.00006 Construction of a Low-energy Single-wire Z-pinch Apparatus for Metal-catalyzed Fusion Studies http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 • B4.00001 Laboratory Nuclear Astrophysics or The universe as seen from underground. • B4.00002 Low energy accelerator for studying laboratory nuclear astrophysics.

• Solar Funnel Cooker invented by Dr. Jones (1990's), including plans to build your own, discussed here: http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm . This paper explains how the same funnel can be used to make ice at night (with air temp about 50 F or less). Start with cardboard and foil cut to about 2’ X 4’ (0.6m X 1.2 m)… OR start with Aluminized windshield reflector and cut so length is just twice the width (photo below, putting oven-safe plastic bag over painted-black canning jar on circular rack).

• Dr. Jones has given several hundreds of the aluminized-mylar Solar Funnel Cookers to families in developing countries in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Turkey and Ecuador, with the most recent solar-cookers given to folks in Mali (2006, see photo below) and Mozambique (2007). More will go to help refugees who have fled from Iraq. Updates: http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm and especially http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht . The latter paper compares the solar cooker made with windshield-reflector (OK) with the cardboard-and-aluminum-foil cooker (better), and it discusses a simple box cooker for low-sun days using just FOUR charcoal briquettes (see photos and data-graph below)...

{debunker mode] Are you claiming that BYU is lying???[/debunker mode]

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):
(1) · S.E. Jones and J.E. Ellsworth, "Cold (metal-enhanced) fusion, geo-fusion, and cold nucleosynthesis", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2005, London: World Scientific, p. 617.

· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. (2) Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989). Results confirmed:2001: "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments", Europhysics Letters, 54:449 “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].” Also, K. Czerski, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A27:S01,83 (2006) “ As shown in [Europhys. Lett. 68:363 (2004)], the screening energy of order 300 eV determined in accelerator experiments can explain the neutron production rate observed by Jones et al. [Nature 338:737, 1989] at room temperature.”

· J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," (3)Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

· S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986). (4)

· S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, A.J. Caffrey, J.S. Cohen, P.A.M. Gram, M. Leon, R.L. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, C.D. Van Siclen, and K.D. Watts, "Observation of Unexpected Density Effects in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 56: 588-591 (1986). (5)

• Research discussed at the American Physical Society Four Corners meeting, 6-7 Oct 2006 (6)

• D3.00006 Construction of a Low-energy Single-wire Z-pinch Apparatus for Metal-catalyzed Fusion Studies http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 • B4.00001 Laboratory Nuclear Astrophysics or The universe as seen from underground. • B4.00002 Low energy accelerator for studying laboratory nuclear astrophysics. (7) (8)

• Solar Funnel Cooker invented by Dr. Jones (1990's), including plans to build your own, discussed here: http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm . This paper explains how the same funnel can be used to make ice at night (with air temp about 50 F or less). Start with cardboard and foil cut to about 2’ X 4’ (0.6m X 1.2 m)… OR start with Aluminized windshield reflector and cut so length is just twice the width (photo below, putting oven-safe plastic bag over painted-black canning jar on circular rack). (9)

• Dr. Jones has given several hundreds of the aluminized-mylar Solar Funnel Cookers to families in developing countries in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Turkey and Ecuador, with the most recent solar-cookers given to folks in Mali (2006, see photo below) and Mozambique (2007). More will go to help refugees who have fled from Iraq. Updates: http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm and especially http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht . The latter paper compares the solar cooker made with windshield-reflector (OK) with the cardboard-and-aluminum-foil cooker (better), and it discusses a simple box cooker for low-sun days using just FOUR charcoal briquettes (see photos and data-graph below)... (10)

Okay.
If it's cold fusion, it's gone. 10 is not a paper. The rest are meetings. Welcome to not reading the entire hting.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Okay.
If it's cold fusion, it's gone. 10 is not a paper. The rest are meetings. Welcome to not reading the entire hting.

So you are calling the prestigious University BYU a liar when they claim that Jones has over fifty "peer-reviewed publications"?